Rhode Island votes yes to gay marriage

The 6 New England states, New York, Maryland, Washington and then you got Iowa. Hopefully Illinois or New Jersey is next, I could see either one of those states passing legislation

The 6 New England states, New York, Maryland, Washington and then you got Iowa. Hopefully Illinois or New Jersey is next, I could see either one of those states passing legislation

All those gay people getting married in all those states. God, it won't be long now until my marriage is completely destroyed. Oh well, almost 40 years down the drain.

Yeah, and hopefully we'll all get the plague too.



Straw man argument.

The fact that your comparing gay marriage to the plague is a bit disturbing. Maybe you should take a time machine back to 17th century Europe. You know you could burn innocent people for witchcraft back then sound like a good time?

Maybe you should take a time machine back to 17th century Europe. You know you could burn innocent people for witchcraft back then sound like a good time?

I myself will admitt that I also thought that the "big hoopla about the basketball player Jason Collins "coming out." was a bit much.
And there are those who will say that this is something "special" and I say BULLSHIT. He is no hero or Jackie Robinson. Maybe it is just the need to write something for the news space.

It's not anything special. People just need to leave it alone, you can support him not support him or whatever, I personally think its a good thing that Jason Collins came out, but the media really blew it up. It was inevitable though, stories like that are too irresistible to pass up

Gays have never been oppressed like black people have, just most people find homosexual marriage to be absurd, and not on the same playing field as real marriage! Humanity has hummed along quite nicely for a couple of thousand years without the need of gay marriage. You don't have to go all the way to Iran to find "freedom haters," just go to France. Over one million French men, women, and children marched in French cities against the passing of gay marriages. You're the reason why people think Americans are morons for the most part, most sane people are against gay marriage, not just Ayatollahs in Iran. Go spout your pro gay marriage crap in any hispanic or black neighborhood in America, you might leave with a black eye though.

Again ivy I'm not a "lib" so don't put me under that label. Yes I support gay marriage but I've stated before people don't have to accept it. I disagreed with the Massachusetts board of education on that recent ruling they had in order not to discriminate against transgender kids. That was going too far.

My basic point is that I suppport gay marriage. Doesn't mean everyone has to accept it, but I absolutely hate it when people slam gays as "disgusting, sinful, or degenerate" thats when I get a little angry.

Gays have never been oppressed like black people have.

Ivy you mistake transgender people with gay people. The two are not always hand in hand. Many gays identity themselves as their born gender, I don't see how gays marrying has anything to do with the Massachusetts school board decision.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Insignificance of Men and Women
Dennis Prager
August 17, 2010

The left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history -- the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.

Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general.

Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate -- even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and "feel" is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays.

But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. And it is more than that. It is the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column -- the "T" has been added to "GLB:" "Transgendered" has been added to "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual." "T" does not represent transsexuals -- people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people.

"Transgendered" refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women's clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left's primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn't matter.

That is why Judge Walker and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women.

They reject that. Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that "proved" that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.

These newer "studies" of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies -- studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers' own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is -- only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept "studies" in place of common sense.

Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

One has to assume that most people -- including supporters of same-sex marriage -- would respond in the affirmative. How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The left's trinity -- compassion, fairness and equality -- is one reason. And "studies" and "facts" are another.

That is exactly how so many college graduates came to believe that boys would be happy with tea sets, and girls would be happy with trucks -- compassion, fairness, equality and "studies." That is also how many Americans, including a judge who overturned a state's constitutional amendment, have come to believe that never having a mother or never having a father makes absolutely no difference to a child.

And if mothers and fathers are interchangeable, men as men and women as women lose their significance.

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx...f_men_and_women

By the way, you say that not everybody "has to accept it" but, for instance, California voters certainly are being made to. They voted twice on this issue, only to have their votes negated by a gay judge.

Well, the gay and transgender community has done this themselves by using the acronym LGBT. And that actually goes to the underlying point I've always made in these debates about homosexuality. Read the article below, where Dennis Prager articulates it much better than I can. It applies directly to you and others who share your position.

It's like saying people in California voted that no one should have brunches and said that you should have lunches, or breakfasts. You don't get to vote on people's choices and way of lives that doesn't concern you. So what if someone wants to have brunch and you don't? Simply don't have a brunch.

Oh, yeah. This is what it comes down to, what has got the panties of homophobes in the bunch: The image of a man, doing house chores and being called a house-husband?! Because that's a low for a man. That's a woman's job to pick up your dirty socks and make you dinner and do your laundry and clean up the house. And it's just a thorn in your eyes to see a woman go out and make money. Because the fair sex must be dependent to male sex, or your masculinity is threatened. [sarcasm]Yeah, it's all about you. Gay people are doing this just to make you miserable. There's no other reason really.[/sarcasm]

Wrong. People in each state certainly DO get to vote on whether they want something like gay marriage. What should NOT happen is one GAY JUDGE overruling the will of the people. And notice how NONE of you gay marriage supporters have commented on the conflict of interest there.



An atheist and a feminist. Talk about a lost cause.

I don't really have an opinion on this subject, but i completely agree with your first paragraph, but it does seem like you're omitting a crucial piece of info i apolagize if i'm completely missing something obvious.

Wrong. People in each state certainly DO get to vote on whether they want something like gay marriage. What should NOT happen is one GAY JUDGE overruling the will of the people. And notice how NONE of you gay marriage supporters have commented on the conflict of interest there.

An atheist and a feminist. Talk about a lost cause.

No, they don't. When it comes to individual rights, a majority cannot force a minority to abandon their essential rights, just as people don't get to vote a special cuisine out, or vote a special religion out. Individual rights of minorities cannot be infringed upon by the majority.

And I'm a lost cause to be taken advantage of by you. Good for me.

The whole issue is whether they really have these so-called "rights." You may find this hard to believe but them having these "rights" is NOT a foregone conclusion, no matter how much you think so. There's nothing in the Constitution to support such a claim and so it's up to each state to decide for itself. Just like the abortion matter should have been. The issue should be left up to the people. Not to activist judges who go beyond the role and twist the Constitution in order to make laws. Especially when it's an issue about gay marriage and the judge is gay. This is the problem with you liberals. You attribute to yourselves or others certain "rights," and anyone who disagrees with you is denying you these "rights;" and since public opinion is often against you, you ram your agenda through the courts.

If you get to marry the way you want, they get to marry the way they want. It might not be a foregone conclusion for you yet, but it's an apparent infringement of homosexual individual rights. And courts provide checks and balances on tyranny of the majority. They are not by any means beyond their roles. It's their role to stand up to tyrannical majorities and uphold the right of minorities.

Ivy did you basically ignore my last post on this thread? I thought it brought up a fair point. You can't go too extreme in any direction.

All you're doing is stating the way you wish it would be. Not the way it actually is.

I've brought up before how, over a century ago, the country would not allow polygamy. Way back then, it decided what it considered marriage and what it didn't; despite the fact that the practice of it was part of the religious beliefs of some people, which IS actually a Constitutional right.

Nobody, including yourself, had a problem with that. But now, when it comes to gays, suddenly we should change the definition of marriage because they are being denied their "rights." What a crock. You couldn't care less about these so called "rights." Just about pushing your sick, liberal, godless agenda.

So why don't you challenge that injustice and bring that up to a judge of your choice? You could in fact go all the way to the supreme court and might get your way yet. I've not seen a logical argument as to why not polygamy indeed.

My basic point is that people used religion and god to commit atrocities since man invented it. You can't deny that. However extreme feminism and liberalism is also a bad thing. I see a balance here. If you push an agenda to the point where it affects the balance of the lives that we live it's not a good thing.

That's why I cannot stand the democratic machine of my home state, Elizabeth warren and Hollywood actors. But I also dislike evangelicals and conservative Christians who feel the need to ram their views down everyone's throat and it's that extreme faction of america that gives political conservatives and fiscal conservatives a bad name.

Even though they actually did have Constitutional protection on the issue, the polygamists (well most of them anyway) submitted to the will of the nation on the issue. Like gays, who don't have Constitutional protection on the issue, should now. Or at least be content to leave it up to the states.

I agree with everything you said. Of course, on the gay marriage issue, you'll notice only one side is trying to ram their views down everyone's throat via the courts. Though very happy with DOMA, most on the other side would be fine with leaving it up to each state.

In fact you open a thread about polygamy, albeit not strictly the religious type that involves a man and many women, the type that let any number of consenting adults getting married. I promise I debate that issue with any naysayer till I've any typing left in me.

I really don't mean to be disrespectful or offensive, but is there at least something in this world that is considered "bad" and "immoral", apart from things that directly involve physical harm to others, like rape and murder? What will happen if people start thinking that "personal freedom" is more important than "not harming others"?

That's why I cannot stand the democratic machine of my home state, Elizabeth warren and Hollywood actors. But I also dislike evangelicals and conservative Christians who feel the need to ram their views down everyone's throat and it's that extreme faction of america that gives political conservatives and fiscal conservatives a bad name.

You don't have to be religious to be against gay marriages. Marriage has always been between males and females, it transcends all religions, culture, and politics. Gay marriage is an issue that just popped up a decade or two ago, when the people who want to wreck nations got bored and had to think up some more sick crap to piss off the majority of good people. It is just another notch in their belt, just like the mass amounts of illegal immigration. A few illegal immigrants never ruffled anyones feathers, until an entire country was allowed to immigrate illegally at will.

It reminds me of the brain dead morons who blame guns when some kid goes on a shooting spree. They need to be blaming the sick society that produced these sick kids, but mass consumerist morons with their ten second attention spans need some easy reason.

Minnesota is going for the hat trick tomorrow.

Oh no Kly! After Rhode Island approved gay marriage I told my wife that I didn't think we would make it to our 40th in August. Afterall, since gay marriage is destroying our marriage, adding two states since Rhode Island would absolutely doom us.

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your "facts." It is a FACT that ritualized same sex marriages existed in ancient history. They were outlawed in the fourth century AFTER Christ by the Church.

Ivy I think he means "ancient" cultures, ones that existed long before Jesus Christ

Well, if we want to look back, we can go back to the beginning and see the divinely set pattern of Adam and Eve. Whatever may have come in some cultures afterward isn't a justification for legalized gay marriage today.

Well there we run into a problem as well. All depends of you believe the earth is 6000 years old as opposed to 2.5 billion. I personally don't believe that Adam and eve were the beginning nor do I believe that they even existed. To me they represent metaphors that early Christians wanted to convey. Evidence suggests human civilization (Egyptians, mesopotamians, Indus valley, china) existed thousands of years before the bible says the world began.

Then again that's not what this thread is about. Excuse me for getting off topic

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your "facts." It is a FACT that ritualized same sex marriages existed in ancient history. They were outlawed in the fourth century AFTER Christ by the Church.

There is no basis in FACT for your assertion that the concept was invented by a few people who want to wreck nations," whatever that means.

Finally there is no link between Gay marriage and immigration. And never in history has an entire nation immigrated from one country to another, as you state. There is one country entirely made up of immigrants, however...its called The United States of America.

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your "facts." It is a FACT that ritualized same sex marriages existed in ancient history. They were outlawed in the fourth century AFTER Christ by the Church.

And, once again, some ancient civilizations practicing gay marriage is hardly an argument to do the same today. Some ancient civilizations also practiced crucifixion.

Gerry you're tinkering on borderline insanity

In other words you don't have a decent rebuttal, just childish insults. Anyone who responds with buzzwords like racist, bigot, sexist, etc., is usually too stupid to present a decent argument.

Did I respond with an insult? No, I simply find you so extreme an argument is not worth presenting.

You don't have to go that far back. More recently there were tribes practicing cannabilism.

Did I respond with an insult? No, I simply find you so extreme an argument is not worth presenting.

And most of the world who is against gay marriage is third world pal. Aka-the middle east, Africa, Latino countries.

Well, if we want to look back, we can go back to the beginning and see the divinely set pattern of Adam and Eve. Whatever may have come in some cultures afterward isn't a justification for legalized gay marriage today.

Latino counties tend to be Catholic. Their being against gay marriage has nothing to do with being from the so called "third world." If you're against gay marriage for TRULY religious reasons, then it's not fair to label such people extremists. To do so is an ignorant and extreme thing to do in itself. You know, pot-kettle and all that.

You are right PB my apologies. I only meant to call Gerry extreme not for religious reasons but purely because of ignorance and lack of fact.

It's not extreme to be against gay marriage. But to say it destroys society and civilization (along with immigration) is utter nonsense. If you're against gay marriage that's your deal, but I think you've clearly lived under a rock your entire life. Have you ever met a gay person or bothered to interact with one? They are perfectly nice people and you wanna know another thing? They're human just like you and I.

And most of the world who is against gay marriage is third world pal. Aka-the middle east, Africa, Latino countries. Again as olivant stated, you love expressing your personal feelings and emotions on this subject but have nothing to offer in terms of knowledge or fact.

Who gives a fuck. If this bothers you your a homophobe/closet gay.......


God bless fucking america!

That only works if you believe fairy tales about talking snakes.

I've also found that term amusing - "homophobe." In other words, a guy can go out and screw another guy up the rear end, have oral sex with him, and God knows what other depraved acts; but if I find that disgusting, I'm the one with the problem.

Not to mention some of those acts IL depicts which sicken him, well men and women do that with each other. (I know they do. I've seen the movies.) Does this make him a Heterophobe too?

To spell it out with redacted words (which make him queasy) replaced with innocent terms, Yes women put BANANA in their mouth and men stick their tongue in their HONEY POT and then he sticks his HOT DOG into her TAILPIPE and not her ROSEBUD.

I bet he only screws missionary. Or maybe the occassional Doggystyle, when he frequently asks the misses: "Harder!"

The truth is much simpler in my mind. Ivy is disgusted and intolerant of anything that doesn't fit his definition of "normal".

That also makes him a bad Christian.

The truth is much simpler in my mind. Ivy is disgusted and intolerant of anything that doesn't fit his definition of "normal".


That also makes him a bad Christian.

In fact I read an interesting article once claiming that the modern Gay community in NYC started post-WW2 when returning G.I.s couldn't go back home to their communities across the country because they were caught doing "sodomy" and their local draft boards were notified and thus would've become local pariahs so they stayed pretty much where they docked home from Europe and Asia.

It seems that so many posts in a few threads now keep repeating how disgusting the thought of gay sex is. It makes me wonder how often these people's minds are fixed on the images of men having sex with other men.

Anyway, these are the very people, who should be in favor of civil marriages for gays. Nothing kills the sex drive like a marriage certificate, so if you allow them to marry, your imaginaation may rid itself of gay fantasies, and focus on a bickering old couple.

Why even talk about the gay sex act when the issue is what people are calling gay marriages. Except to confuse or to make fun of people.
They aren't trying to pass laws to allow gay sex acts.

Now I noticed you used the term Civil Marriage in your post which is what it should be called.
People should stop making up a new sectors and just stop putting the spotlight on the Gay part.

Two people want to get together and live their lives together, so be it. Live and let live. Last I looked , no one was hunting down Gay people and hanging them in the streets....well not here in America anyway.

I will tell you one thing. Ivy is more of a man they many who post their hate around here.

When I refer to civil marriage, I include hetero as well as homosexual marriage. I used the term civil merely to differentiate a religious marriage from a state sanctioned marriage, two entirely different entities.

The definition of "normal" is what it is. It's just not me who says it. Nobody can honestly argue homosexuality is normal.

I doubt you have the slightest idea of what does or doesn't make a good or bad Christian.

While you may admire the fact that Ivy sticks by his beliefs, you have a very odd idea of what makes a man. A real man isn't disgusted by his fellow human beings, like Ivy is by homosexuals and transgenders. A real man doesn't think that women are should be submissive to their men. A real man doesn't lack compassion for their fellow human beings. And neither does a true Christian, one who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ - that we are all children of God and that we must love our fellow man. Jesus didn't say we get to pick and choose which of His creations we get to love.

Take a step back and get off your soapbox. Your holier then thou attitude and "you have a very odd idea of what makes a man" is in poor taste. You don't need to come down on me like that.

He has his ideas and you have yours,
You just don't get the fact that he IS allowed to have his.

Last I looked God still allows this to happen

Well, I've never really given much thought to gay sex. But let's be honest, I think most men, if asked to picture it in their heads, would say that the idea kinda puts them off their lunch. But that doesn't mean that they're necessarily hateful or unaccepting of gays. And if you're truly objective, and not just paying lip service to some politically correct ideal, just flip it around. Go ask a gay man what he thinks when he pictures sex with a woman. You'll get the same response most of the time.

Now I worked in funeral service for 25 years. In Manhattan there are A LOT of gay men in that industry, and I got along well enough with most of them because there's the same percentage of assholes among gay men as among straight men. But you had to hear these guys talk about women. Their favorite expression was "cow." I've heard more than one gay man compare sex with an older woman to having sex with a cow (the younger ones didn't bother them as much for some reason ).

I'm just saying, it works both ways and we're being way too PC here. I accept gay people. But I don't want to picture two gay men doing it any more than a gay man wants to picture himself having sex with a "cow."

Well, I've never really given much thought to gay sex. But let's be honest, I think most men, if asked to picture it in their heads, would say that the idea kinda puts them off their lunch. But that doesn't mean that they're necessarily hateful or unaccepting of gays. And if you're truly objective, and not just paying lip service to some politically correct ideal, just flip it around. Go ask a gay man what he thinks when he pictures sex with a woman. You'll get the same response most of the time.

Now I worked in funeral service for 25 years. In Manhattan there are A LOT of gay men in that industry, and I got along well enough with most of them because there's the same percentage of assholes among gay men as among straight men. But you had to hear these guys talk about women. Their favorite expression was "cow." I've heard more than one gay man compare sex with an older woman to having sex with a cow (the younger ones didn't bother them as much for some reason ).

I'm just saying, it works both ways and we're being way too PC here. I accept gay people. But I don't want to picture two gay men doing it any more than a gay man wants to picture himself having sex with a "cow."

Last I looked God still allows this to happen

While you may admire the fact that Ivy sticks by his beliefs, you have a very odd idea of what makes a man. A real man isn't disgusted by his fellow human beings, like Ivy is by homosexuals and transgenders.

A real man doesn't think that women are should be submissive to their men.

A real man doesn't lack compassion for their fellow human beings.

And neither does a true Christian, one who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ - that we are all children of God and that we must love our fellow man. Jesus didn't say we get to pick and choose which of His creations we get to love.

That's like saying you being disgusted by rapists and child molesters don't make you a "real woman."

Take a step back and get off your soapbox. Your holier then thou attitude and "you have a very odd idea of what makes a man" is in poor taste. You don't need to come down on me like that.

He has his ideas and you have yours,
You just don't get the fact that he IS allowed to have his.

Last I looked God still allows this to happen

It's nothing like that actually. Rape and child molestation are bad by definition, whereas being gay is not (except for in the eyes of God, which is irrelevant to the point.) You can't compare one to the other, because the former involves performing sexual acts on someone who either doesn't have the ability to consent, or has the ability, but didn't give it. I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you, but I know it is the last time I'm explaining it.

So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived -- indeed completely changing its intended meaning -- is good for society.

It isn't.

The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings' personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage.

The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters.

Some examples of this war on gender:

--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.

--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.

--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.

--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.

--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.

--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispra...riage/page/full

What constituted "poor taste"? You said he was more man, and I disputed that statement. How is that in "poor taste"? And how am I on a soapbox if I respond to something YOU wrote??

I certainly think people can disagree. It's what makes the world go around. What does bother me is that when people feel that anyone who disagrees with them is flat out wrong, yet I'm the one who doesn't respect the opinions of others? Really?

Since certain members think I must be Satan's bride, calling me "holier than thou" is ironic, no?

--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.

--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.

--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.

--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.

--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.

--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispra...riage/page/full

Something else? Like what? Why don't you move to Iran. They hate homos there.

Are you living in 2 dimensions? So I either become a homosexual zealot or move to Iran? No middle-ground?

No,the middle ground is to stop being the homophobic zealot you are, and mind your own business.

You don't know me, I barely posted in this thread, and I am a zealot? With such an attitude you will only create more homophobes (I am not one.... yet).

It's sick, and an example of how easy it is to brainwash mass amounts of people into supporting, even fighting for, a totally abnormal behavior.

I don't know you, but I know you posted an illogical dichotomy that reveals your point of view.

Excerpt from a Dennis Prager article where he hits the nail on the head yet again. He gives several examples of the kind of crap that comes with the pro-gay marriage stance many advocate here.

My point of view is that allowing gay marriage and giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals should theoretically be perfectly enough for people if they REALLY are ONLY about equality. But I personally don't want the notion of gender be cancelled in my family, and many people think like me. Distinguishing between a mother and a father is NOT discrimination. Not every difference involves discrimination. If you want to force YOUR ideals in the families of OTHER people, what's the difference between a religious bigot and you?

I mean, what horrified me in this article isn't something about homosexuals, but that they seem to want the genders to DISAPPEAR, not just to enjoy the same rights.

Please define "abnormal behavior"

Your rage over anyone disagreeing with you, your name calling, your zealot like fight for degenerates--I see it as abnormal.

My point of view is that allowing gay marriage and giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals should theoretically be perfectly enough for people if they REALLY are ONLY about equality. But I personally don't want the notion of gender be cancelled in my family, and many people think like me. Distinguishing between a mother and a father is NOT discrimination. Not every difference involves discrimination. If you want to force YOUR ideals in the families of OTHER people, what's the difference between a religious bigot and you?

I mean, what horrified me in this article isn't something about homosexuals, but that they seem to want the genders to DISAPPEAR, not just to enjoy the same rights.

... I personally don't want the notion of gender be cancelled in my family, and many people think like me. Distinguishing between a mother and a father is NOT discrimination. Not every difference involves discrimination. If you want to force YOUR ideals in the families of OTHER people, what's the difference between a religious bigot and you?

I mean, what horrified me in this article isn't something about homosexuals, but that they seem to want the genders to DISAPPEAR, not just to enjoy the same rights.

Yeah, house chores are horrifying. Raising children which is dumped completely on women, is horrifying. I mean, what man in his right mind wants to feed and cloth the children, cook, do the laundry, pay the bills, take children to school, take them to doctors, nurse them through sickness, prepare their lunch boxes, help them with homework, clean up after them ... and the list goes on and on. The result of these gender roles are mothers that either love their children and resent their husband, or are totally ready to walk out on all of them.

Gender roles are simply the sexist way of taking advantage of women, or the sexist way of looking at men, thinking that they are unable to do house chores or raise children. I think they are up to the task. Some just don't want to do it and hide behind the gender roles.

You don't like Christ and don't want religon in public place- to F"en bad...then don't thake the holiday off. It is called Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays.

In fact, I never understood why this "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" matter is even a problem for somebody. If a Muslim congratulated me with some Islamic holiday, I wouldn't be offended at all.

Correction, that's how it used to be. Not so much anymore, more girls than ever are going to college, have professional jobs, and are surpassing men in many fields

Yes, but when they tell you that you shouldn't say this or that ..then it matters.

I agree with JoeSchmo, Afs.

Now I'm not trying to offend you. I think you know me better than that. But I think that the treatment of women is still so horrifying in Iraq that you might be projecting some of that on American women. And to be honest, I'll bet there are plenty of women in your country who would trade in their burqa for a frying pan in a heartbeat.

Besides, the days of June Cleaver and Harriet Nelson are over in the United States. Yes, there's a long way to go in that women still don't make as much money as men as a rule, but it's not the '50s anymore either.

Iraq? Burka? Now I'm offended. I'm not projecting anything. It's like that still in America. I think you are mixing trends of a big city with that of small towns in the US. That's exactly where people are scared of these changes in gender roles. In fact when I came there, I was shocked. All I listed was what most women were doing, and husbands were almost irrelevant when it came to their children, except playing sports with them.

Just to be clear, I live in Iran. I'm not sure if burka is a thing in Iraq, but it isn't in Iran. Burka was a mandatory dress code for women in Afghanistan and is still in Saudi Arabia. You could see the type of hejab that's required for us with an easy google search for "Iranian hijab." Not sure what you mean with this trading burka with frying pan, but comparing the life of women in Alabama with that of Iran, I thought, heck, it was like that back in Iran, so why did I even move? Just to take off my scarf?

Iraq was an honest typo. I know you live in Iran. As far as the burqa-hijab mixup, I apologize, but I think you get my point. So I'll corrrect myself. The women in your country would trade in their hijab for a frying pan in a heartbeat.

But by posting "it's still like that in America," you're implying that we've made zero progress. It's also beyond ignorant to imply that the only differnce between Alabama and Iran is "taking off your scarf." If you could have stayed here, you would have. Any sane person would.

My main beef is that you're saying that we've made no progress, and I'm saying that we have. We've made a lot of progress, and it's not just in the big cities. You're propagating the southern-redneck stereotype in saying that we haven't.

Your problem is that you got to see very small part of America for a very short time period, and your envy of the freedoms of American women is very transparent. Don't get me wrong. I don't blame you. What sane oppressed woman wouldn't be envious?

I could've gotten married and stayed, just like anyone else that does so. Then I would've probably had to do all that I listed. So put me under insane.

Anyway, don't put words in my mouth. Obviously there are people who are scared of gender role changes. And my post was toward them, otherwise why should they be worried about disappearance of gender roles?

And please put me under disappointed to see there are still people in the US that hate their freedom so much, they want to oppress women, homosexuals, minorities, etc.

Obviously there are people who are scared of gender role changes. And my post was toward them, otherwise why should they be worried about disappearance of gender roles?

You're seriously going to compare social issues in America to Iran? Come on don't bullshit us

I personally have nothing against changing gender ROLES, but when politicians in France forbid to use words "father" and "mother" in official documents and when father-daughter dances are forbidden just because some people consider them not politically correct enough, do you put such people into the "sane" category? Don't they really have anything else to do?

You're seriously going to compare social issues in America to Iran? Come on don't bullshit us

You're picturing Saudi Arabia. Iran actually has a rather long history of liberalism going back to the early 20th century, and arguably before then. And you do realize, that the Iranian revolution, which put the current regime in power, happened partly due to the US helping overthrow a democratically elected government in favor of a puppet monarchy right? It's not their fault they're now under Islamic theocracy, as they actually tried to continue social and governmental liberalism progress after the Constitutional Revolution and Mossadegh era, and then tried again recently as few years ago. Remember 1906?! 1953? 1979.

Amazing that all the men are the ones who think we've made progress. Yes, we have. Women get careers, too, in addition to the house and the kids.

I went back to work outside the home when my youngest was 9 months old. I was primarily responsible for the house, the meals, the kids, their schoolwork, the bills, the food shopping, the laundry, PLUS I was Vice President of a local non-profit.

I have to say that my husband did what he could, but his commute was 52 miles each way and mine was 6. Why would the school call him to come pick up the kids if they were sick when he was over an hour away and I was 10 minutes away? But it was more than that, because I have lots of friends with children and most of them worked when the kids were little, and most of them were the primary caregivers and kept the homes.

Add all that to the fact that we also get "working mother's guilt" (why don't father's feel guilty?), and it's still fairly unbalanced in many homes.

Afs, I don't mean to disparage my husband at all, he's a great husband and a fantastic father. However, the bulk of the household responsibilities fell to me. Most women are in the same boat, and men may want to be helpful, but they don't even know where half the stuff in the house is kept.

Amazing that all the men are the ones who think we've made progress. Yes, we have. Women get careers, too, in addition to the house and the kids.

I went back to work outside the home when my youngest was 9 months old. I was primarily responsible for the house, the meals, the kids, their schoolwork, the bills, the food shopping, the laundry, PLUS I was Vice President of a local non-profit.

I have to say that my husband did what he could, but his commute was 52 miles each way and mine was 6. Why would the school call him to come pick up the kids if they were sick when he was over an hour away and I was 10 minutes away? But it was more than that, because I have lots of friends with children and most of them worked when the kids were little, and most of them were the primary caregivers and kept the homes.

Add all that to the fact that we also get "working mother's guilt" (why don't father's feel guilty?), and it's still fairly unbalanced in many homes.

Personally, I don't think it is such a great idea to have a father daughter dance. So how about those who have lost their fathers or don't have one to begin with? Can't they dance with their mother? Why do you have to remind them that they are different? All these social pressures to conform to a certain family pattern is what is insane. I think it is important to have male and female influences in the lives of all the children. But then there are relatives and teachers from both sexes for that matter.

In the issue of social equality, I see men talk the talk, but then at their own home, they seldom walk the walk.

I concur with FF and PB. This political correctness is getting ridiculous. You can only take it so far. And just for the record, if there's a mother-son thing ever in my lifetime I'm sure as hell calling her my "mother" and not my fucking "parent" because it might offend someone. And if it does, honestly that's just stupid as hell. I also know if I have a wife someday I will consider her my equal in the relationship. In terms of workload I'm not thinking that far ahead, but I'm certainly not going to lay on a couch, watch tv with a beer in my hand and ask her to make me a sandwich.

PB, you could be as cruel as you like. I wouldn't mind it. This is the exact reaction women activists get when they state this matter over here. It's interesting to see you get the same reaction from American men as well. They rip you apart, call you bitter, and the rest of the nonsense. You could patronize me all you want, that's my observation of the American families. And I read an article recently to back it up:

Why there are more walk-away moms

On the father daughter dance, no one is trying to deny you the pleasure of dancing with your daughter. But high school is cruel enough, without all these social pressures. If they change it to dance with your parent event, it's more inclusive and less heartbreaking for those who have lost their father. I know if I didn't have a father for such an event, I would've been very heartbroken.

And thanks for immigration advice. I'm not planning to move anyway. The grass always seems to be greener on the other side, but I'm strangely happy here.

On the father daughter dance, no one is trying to deny you the pleasure of dancing with your daughter. But high school is cruel enough, without all these social pressures. If they change it to dance with your parent event, it's more inclusive and less heartbreaking for those who have lost their father. I know if I didn't have a father for such an event, I would've been very heartbroken.

Oh please. Out of all the ludicrous statements you make on here, this is pushing it. You know better than us? The people who actually live, breathe, and observe this country? Dont think for one second youre an expert on the American family, you've received so many examples from people of how gender roles here aren't a huge deal anymore. Yet here you are carrying on and whining about a problem that really doesn't exist in America this day and age. It ain't the sixties and seventies anymore. You wanna campaign for rights for women, do it in a place that actually needs it: like your own country for instance.

And I'll be damned if anyone is going to change a father-daughter dance to a "parent-daughter" dance. You wanna talk about a stupid ass idea, there's one right there.

just stop it! the whole "highschool is filled with too much preesure" line of reasoning is nothing more than an excuse to justify shit, be it bad behavior or trying to mold the world into some silly, unrealistic utopia. guess what, life is full of pressure, and trying to eliminate it all does nothing but create a generation of emotionally weak, entitled people who are under the false impression that everything is going to be fair. like i have already stated, many are unable to handle the truth when faced with reality, and society always bares the brunt of this.

as far as your justification for the father daughter dance, heh. some people don't have fathers, some mothers. some people don't have legs, some people money, health ect, we could go on all day. the silly reasoning that we can somehow try and accommodate everyone is wishful thinking at best, but in reality its delusional and crazy! are you really so naive that you believe that changing the name would help people feel more comfortable? what about when they are at the dance and see everyone dancing with their dads, what then? why not just put a paper bag over everyone's head so that way nobody knows anything? anybody not wearing the bag should be kicked out and fined, with the proceeds going to the land of make believe fund for equality!

I campaign for this, wherever I like, whenever I like it. Makes you uncomfortable reading it? Ignore my user ID. I stand by all I said.

Then I can only say you're completely delusional and it's a good thing that people like you aren't in power.

Do you mean to say the lady who wrote this article is delusional as well? The reason I'm quoting this is that you replied so fast, I don't think you bothered yourself to read it.

Why there are more walk-away moms

Okay that's one example of a mom booking it. Just so you know that's not the norm. Can you name anyone else? Thought not. Again, this proves to me you don't know jack squat

This is not just one example. The data provided by article shows a trend. Also, it states that still most of the house works are done by women. So do not tell me it aint so.

That woman ran out on her kids. Not because of a demanding, husband, but because she didn't want to responsibility of raising her kids. That's disgraceful. Also when I was growing up, my dad worked and my mom was the stay at home. Not once did she ever complain about taking care of the house and my brothers, and she was a damn good mom, and I love her for what she did. Did that somehow make her inferior to my dad who worked his ass off to provide for everyone? No of course not. It also doesn't make my dad a slob who told my mother "to stifle herself" or "make me dinner". He was always there for me and my brothers. My mom chose to stay at home when she had me, though she had a career of her own at the time. My dad carried on with his company and became a success. It's just how it worked. It was an equal partnership plain and simple.

Not to say there aren't other families that have the opposite dynamic. One of my best friends had a stay at home and a working mother. It doesn't really matter in the long run. But you're notion of women still being mistreated heavily in this country is utter nonsense.

See, you make stuff up that I never said. That's a straw-man argument. I said look at the data provided by that article. It's not just that woman walking out. There are many. And she as well thinks that it could be because women do more the house chores on top of their jobs, so it gets to them.

I never said a woman who is a happy housewife is stupid or inferior. So not sure why are you trying to make up arguments for me and then refute your own made up argument. If a woman is happy with staying at home dynamic, or doesn't mind doing the house work on top of her day job, so be it.

I said there are still plenty of women, who have to do all the work, because if they leave it to men, it probably never gets done. So they do it. Doesn't mean they are happy about it. Society blames them if the kids are not taken care of, if the house is messed up. It's expected of them to do it, even if they have a full time job. This is abusing women in my book.

And then you see people objecting to gay marriage because it further vanishes the gender roles. This is when it hits a nerve. Now, they don't want to see other men do house work or raise kids.

You come across to me as attacking anything that doesn't fit your world view. That makes you just as bad as the ultra conservatives you attack. I have the same problem at times. But to me what you're saying is that women in the United States are still in the same boat they were forty years ago. That's simply not true. And then you bash men (and women too I will add) who don't agree with you as "not walking the walk".

You know I support gay marriage, that won't vanish gender roles. But households today have the power to delegate who does what in the house. And since when does society blame women if the kids aren't taken care of or the house is messed up? I think it would be the father who would take the bad rap for that, especially if he walked out or is abusive.

As I've said before, you're stuck in the past fighting for a cause that doesn't need fighting for. You haven't spent enough here to really know how an American family works. Step back from your high horse for a second and see the other side of an issue.

And society makes women feel guilty when they put their career ahead of their family, but applauds it when men do so. This has not been changed one bit.

I

Not sure why you are so mad if this fight is already won and I'm charging at the windmills. And society makes women feel guilty when they put their career ahead of their family, but applauds it when men do so. This has not been changed one bit. You could say all you want, I see a different picture here.

[uote=Dwalin2011]I personally have nothing against changing gender ROLES, but when politicians in France forbid to use words "father" and "mother" in official documents and when father-daughter dances are forbidden just because some people consider them not politically correct enough, do you put such people into the "sane" category? Don't they really have anything else to do?

I loved these dances. Not only was it a lot of fun, but it provided an opportunity for the "dad" to show how the girl should be treated as they get older.

Ditto, Klyd. My daughters are 25 and 21 now. Yours are a bit younger, yes?

Well, those memories will mean even more to you when they're away at school or out of the house completely .

PB, you could be as cruel as you like. I wouldn't mind it. This is the exact reaction women activists get when they state this matter over here. It's interesting to see you get the same reaction from American men as well. They rip you apart, call you bitter, and the rest of the nonsense. You could patronize me all you want, that's my observation of the American families. And I read an article recently to back it up:

Why there are more walk-away moms

On the father daughter dance, no one is trying to deny you the pleasure of dancing with your daughter. But high school is cruel enough, without all these social pressures. If they change it to dance with your parent event, it's more inclusive and less heartbreaking for those who have lost their father. I know if I didn't have a father for such an event, I would've been very heartbroken.

And thanks for immigration advice. I'm not planning to move anyway. The grass always seems to be greener on the other side, but I'm strangely happy here.

I don't think he was being cruel....
He was just doing like the rest of us...
Saying we have had enough of this shit people keep throwing out there.

When people feed you this kind of shit, day in and day out....thread to thread it gets a bit overwheling, especially when they have opinions with little or no experience in the subject. Then want to challenge ant posts put out there without any real facts or knowlege.

Then the what about this and the why question try to twist things around but we know what bullshit smell like and sounds like.

People can try as they like to spin things, but you know when your F*@ken wrong you just have to stop and admit you are maybe wrong.

And you know you can only take so much crap before you speach up!

Exactly. France is not trying to diminish the role of gender by substituting the term "parents" for "Mother/father." It is a clarification of the legal code and forms to clarify the legal application.

I have attended father/daughter dances, but the name of the dances for the girls was "Me and My Special Guy." It didn't mention dads specifically because some of the dads were dead, divorced and living away or out of the picture. This allowed the young girl to invite an uncle, grandfather, older brother.

I loved these dances. Not only was it a lot of fun, but it provided an opportunity for the "dad" to show how the girl should be treated as they get older.

Afanseh man is protector of his family just like lions are. I could tell you a story about the lions and the lambs like Anthony Nicodemo but instead I'll just sing " Maaaaaaaaaaaaaa Zimmmmmmm baaaaaaaaaa ......

Lions are good examples. Apparently female lions do most of the hunting especially when prey is small.

Man feeds lion as well. Have you ever seen the movie Donny Brasco when Lefty and Donny are feeding his lion hamburgers on the streets of new york. In most urban cities that is what they are usually fed with wendys white castle mickey d's you know this

Were you under the influence when you posted this? Anyway, as you always go on your soapbox as a moderator wannabe to preach everyone is entitled to their opinion and can speak up their mind here, you could practice what you preach yourself once in a while. This is what I think. I'm entitled to post it here. Don't you like it? Ignore my ID.

Oh. sure go to the insult mode. That is always the play when you have NOTHING to Said that is worth listening too! Like most of your posts.
Don't worry I mostly DO ! Ignore more and more
Enjoy the day!

Insult mode? Said the person whose previous post not only had f word, s word, not to mention "crap" and "bullshit" when he was so eloquently "speeching up."

This inalysis reflects the typical, baseless tempest in a teapot. Categorizing these things, most of which are trivial and misleading, as a war on gender is laughable.

If Harvard wants to show a modicum of respect to one of its employees by refraining from a gender-based pronoun, so be it. It can't stop all of those, who have their panties in a ball over transgenders, from slinging whatever name they want at her. Not calling the transgender "he" or "she" is no crazier than calling Prager's collection of videos a "university."

Catholic Charities was receiving public funds for its adoption services, and therefore are obligated not to discriminate unlawfully in its placement services. It could continue to operate without public funds, but voluntarily suspended adoption services in order to keep the pipelines of public money flowing.

There had been litigation in Illinois as well alleging that Catholic Charities also discriminated on the basis of race and marital status.

I don't buy the line that supporting marriage equality for gays is leading to the result that "gender is insignificant." It is certainly significant to those, who are getting married, gay or straight, and they're the ones, whose opinions matter.

First, there's no sugar coating these "Walk Away Moms." A mom who abandons her family is just evil, plain and simple.

Second, there's no need to start changing terms or doing away with Father/Daughter dances. The traditional family makeup of a father, mother, and children is the best (i.e. superior to all the rest) and should be encouraged by society.

Third, a woman simply making a "choice" doesn't mean it's inherently good. That's the same language twisting that's been done with abortion. Supporters of it, in an attempt to change the topic from what's happening to the baby, argue it's a good thing because they support "choice." By the same token, a women choosing to work outside the home isn't a good thing if it takes away from her role as a wife and mother. And it often does.

Fourth, even though both a husband and father may work outside the home, the balance should always be towards the husband being the main breadwinner and the wife taking care of the duties at home. Adjustments may need to be made according to individual situations but, generally speaking, that's the way it should be. Contrary to liberal, secular, social re-engineering bullshit, gender roles are a good thing and have long been there for a reason.

Fifth, Western Europe continues to be a bellwether for the destructive changes we are and will continue to see here in the U.S.

Sixth and finally, afsaneh77, you need help. Plain and simple.

Ivy come on. Since when is it bad for a mother to work? A have a friend who's mother worked for bank of America and his dad stayed at home and took care of the household. Explain to me why that's bad. Women can be breadwinners there's no reason for them not to strive for it, by the same token plenty choose to stay at my home like my own mom. But let me tell you ivy that makes her no less equal than my dad. To say "that's the way it should be" is absolutely absurd. I called out afs on her crap, im going to call you out on this.

This isn't the fifties anymore. The man doesn't always work, the woman doesn't always and doesn't have to stay in the household. It's being oversimplistic and stereotypical. Gender roles are there, I'm not saying we toss them out. But we shouldn't let them constrict us and confine us

As for "Prager University," it's obviously not meant literally. Prager uses that term because many of our universities today have become, in his words, left-wing seminaries where brainwashing, more than education, is the order of the day.

I say it all comes down to each individual case. If both spouses want to work and raise a child, they should have that right and should make every effort to accommodate each others career aspirations while ensuring a proper upbringing for their kids (whether they decide to use a nanny or share the household duties, etc). If one spouse wants to be the stay at home parent, then thats fine as well. Each couple should be able to make their own choice.

This is it exactly.

Thanks Ivy for proving my point. If not for anything else, I can always count on you to show some who are in denial what's going on.

How did this thread get so off track?

I think me and mrs. dicknose are moving too fast she wants to settle down

You're almost 30, DickNose. There's no "moving too fast" anymore. Shit or get off the bowl, and stop wasting that poor girl's time.

Well she isn't a naturalized citizen shes from Argento I have to ask her father for her hand?

Well she isn't a naturalized citizen shes from Argento I have to ask her father for her hand?

I'm guessing you mean Agrigento?

And if that's the case, you ain't man enough .

Don't just ask for her hand. Make sure you get the rest of her. Good luck to you both.

Afs girl, you got stamina!!! Now, get that apron on and get back in that kitchen and scrub down those walls.

Tell me again, what century are we in?



TIS

Anyone who runs out on their kids, be it the mother or the father, is a piece of shit, and I don't care what their justification is.

Anyone who runs out on their kids, be it the mother or the father, is a piece of shit, and I don't care what their justification is.

Ivy come on. Since when is it bad for a mother to work? A have a friend who's mother worked for bank of America and his dad stayed at home and took care of the household. Explain to me why that's bad. Women can be breadwinners there's no reason for them not to strive for it, by the same token plenty choose to stay at my home like my own mom. But let me tell you ivy that makes her no less equal than my dad. To say "that's the way it should be" is absolutely absurd. I called out afs on her crap, im going to call you out on this.

This isn't the fifties anymore. The man doesn't always work, the woman doesn't always and doesn't have to stay in the household. It's being oversimplistic and stereotypical. Gender roles are there, I'm not saying we toss them out. But we shouldn't let them constrict us and confine us

Women becoming the main breadwinner in the family is becoming increasingly common in our society. More women than men have graduated from US colleges with bachelor’s degrees in every year since 1982, and the same is true for all college degrees (associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s and doctor’s degrees). For the class of 2012, women earned 61.7% of all associate’s degrees, 56.9% of all bachelor’s degrees, 59.6% of all master’s degrees, and 52.1% of all doctor’s degrees. Overall, there were 141 women graduating with a college degree at some level in 2012 for every 100 men. This is from the Dept of Education.

Our society has become one that increasingly requires two adults making an income to sustain and prosper. Personally, I know of tons of couples who both work but the woman earns more than the man. These are all white collar professionals (lawyers, doctors, wall street, etc). Sure it might have pissed the man off back in the day (and it still does bother a few) that he earns less than his wife. But you grow to accept and encourage the success of your spouse, as you should. The vast majority of women who become professionals (I have encountered quite a few) are no-nonsense and work their butts off much more than their male counterparts to continually strive to better themselves.

There was an article a while back in the WSJ about the increasing number of men in our country who are stay at home dads while the wife is the main breadwinner in the family. Many of the dads that are in this situation were at first embarrassed but have grown to become accustomed and grateful to stay at home and raise their children,given that traditionally this hasn't been the norm. There are tons of men who would rather stay at home anyway.

I say it all comes down to each individual case. If both spouses want to work and raise a child, they should have that right and should make every effort to accommodate each others career aspirations while ensuring a proper upbringing for their kids (whether they decide to use a nanny or share the household duties, etc). If one spouse wants to be the stay at home parent, then thats fine as well. Each couple should be able to make their own choice.

Prager and his crappy university are full of bullshit. Brainwashing? LOL. It has been shown that the opposite is the case with many universities in the South (especially rural) doing much bible-thumping in all aspects of their teachings (I have seen this personally on visits). I suggest you visit a few of our nations universities (good ones, not bullshit ones like Prager) and you will see that this is far from the case. Conservative and Liberal viewpoints are always discussed (and debated) besides one another in subjects such as politics, economics, or many others. The debates are never one sided either. Often times its the right wing viewpoint (from my experience) that makes the most noise.

I really don't get why you think women making strives in the workforce is bad ivy. Besides in the business world it doesn't matter about whether or not you have a penis it's about your brain: what you can do with it and can you make it in a business environment. That's not a decline of society, now I agree that if men are falling behind which they are when it comes to education and college degrees something must be done to resolve that.

But it's like almost everyone else said before, individual households make the choice of who works or who stays at home. It is NOT subjected to the man being a breadwinner and the women staying in the kitchen. I'm starting to think you're watching too much All in the family ivy remember that show is comedy

Please don't compare gender roles in Iran with gender roles in USA. It's like comparing Hitler with Martin Luther King.

Ivy just stop and think about that for a second. That's the way it's "supposed" to be? You really do need a time machine to the fifties. I'm not saying kids should be raised with both parents working but what if the dad stays at home and the mother works? Who says a father can't take care of the kids? I'm trying to get you to think outside of the box here. How do you know for sure that it's "meant" to be that way? Please don't tell me you do.

Yes, I do know for sure that's how it's supposed to be. Just like I know a lot of other things. That you don't know them, or don't believe them, is your problem and doesn't change what's true. And for a father to choose to stay home with the kids, while the mother works, is just unnatural and wrong. But, considering your twisted view on things like gay marriage, I don't expect you to understand any of this either.

And this is where your arrogance comes into play. Gay marriage is one thing. But this is quite another. It's nothing more than sexism, close mindedness, and above all living in a past world that doesn't exist any longer. I hope you have a pleasant evening, the gravy was good tonight and good night to you. Adios people

I would only be arrogant if I was wrong. Which I'm not.

I would only be arrogant if I was wrong. Which I'm not.

I would only be arrogant if I was wrong. Which I'm not.

Ivy league, I will give you a chance to prove you are right. Please give me the sources and bases for the opinion you have stated here.

You know, my parents were fervent Catholics; one of my sisters Catholic fervency approaches the level of Opus Dei. However, all manifested and manifest toleration. Their fervency never approached adamancy.

Sometimes adamancy or unmitigated adherence to a standard can be a function of deficient self-esteem.

If you look you will also see the General Discussion is probably more used than the Godfather sections nowadays.

It was inevitable. We've run out of things to talk about over there. "The Godfather" is finite. Real life discussion is endless. I actually wish it was the other way around.

Welcome back, Cami!

(this guy will do anything to build up his post count ...)

Your Right.

This make 41 posts since I took flight. How many more do I need to get on that TOP POSTERS list?

Ivy league, I say there is no God. Prove it. Show me at least ONE Report by any Crime Commission that says there is a God and then I will believe it.

Ivy league, I say there is no God. Prove it. Show me at least ONE Report by any Crime Commission that says there is a God and then I will believe it.

Sorry, DT, I don't agree. Why should threads be closed? If people don't want to post, don't. Move on. However, given it's level of activity, then I guess people are still interested.

Gee DT, why didn't you learn this from the last time you said the same thing in another thread?

Ivy league, I say there is no God. Prove it. Show me at least ONE Report by any Crime Commission that says there is a God and then I will believe it.

First, a guy like Prager has more brains than a partisan, meme-posting hack like you will ever have. Try listening to the guy before running your mouth.

Second, as I pointed out above, when he calls it "Prager University," he doesn't mean a literal university.

Third, while I don't necessarily doubt that there are Christian/Bible teachings interwoven in some of the classes of some Southern colleges, for you to argue that most public universities don't have a huge liberal slant shows how non-objective I've always believed you to be.

No need to get personal. But since you did, then its my turn now.

I have listened to the guy, and he is a neoconservative nut job just like you. Period. Anybody that doesnt believe me then Google him yourself.

More brains than me? He is an educated guy, doesnt mean the crap he spouts is right. I am probably one of the most educated and accomplished individuals on this board (no offense to others). Definitely more than you that's for sure. Now go run along and play with the rest of your brainwashed cult.

Partisan meme posting hack? This from the guy who continues to be bashed and hated as the biggest FBI crime report mouthpiece to have ever graced any of these forums.

Prager University or whatever he wants to call it. As far as I am concerned, its lower than an online scam like the Univ. of Phoenix or the Church of LDS.

I didnt distinguish between public or private universities. That comment dealt with private institutions. They dont have a HUGE liberal slant, and that is a fact.

Non-objective?The vast majority on these forums would say I am one of the most non-objective posters on here. Much more than you, you don't even have one iota of objectivity in you which is evident any time you discuss anything to do with politics or society.

D Squared glad you put him in his place. Ivy lives in a bubble and his impotent "If you don't use it you lost it"

I got personal because you were talking out of your ass.

You apparently haven't listened to him. At least not very much. He certainly isn't a "neoconservative nut job" and I doubt there's any examples you could give me to prove he is.

For one of the most "educated and accomplished" people here, you sure do let mime posters do a lot of your talking.

Again, you're talking out of your ass. You haven't listened to Prager enough, nor do you know enough about the LDS Church, to make these statements. Prager is conservative so you immediately write him off because you're a partisan liberal. That's all there is to it.

Public universities certainly do have a HUGE liberal slant. That's a fact. Even you can't deny that. But you probably think the mainstream media isn't liberally biased either, huh?

You pay more lip-service to being objective than the other libs here but you're every bit of a partisan as they are. I certainly conservative but neither Republican or Democrat and, in fact, hold both parties in contempt. It's obvious you're in the bag for anyone with a (D) after their name.

[I wasnt talking out of my ass, I dont comment on things I know nothing about. I am familiar with this topic and thus I felt like commenting.

Prager consistently espouses the neoconservative line on both foreign and domestic affairs, including championing the Iraq War and hardline Israeli policies. In a December 2003 op-ed for the WSJ titled "Ten Lessons from Saddam Hussein's Capture," Prager says: "America is the greatest force for good on the planet. America, with the support of Britain and some other countries, and against the rest of 'world opinion,' liberated Iraq from evil." "The positive effect on humanity of good vanquishing evil cannot be overstated. ... Many on the Left are ... not particularly happy [with Saddam's capture]. Saddam's capture is a victory for American force and for George W. Bush, and the Left hates both more than it hates Saddam. ... Most of the Left does not hate evil; hatred of evil is primarily found on the Right. ... For years leading up to 9/11, Islamists were respected for their increasing power and America was losing respect as it suffered blows at the hands of Islamic terror. Now America is seen as the powerful one, and is earning the respect once accorded Saddam and Osama. The importance of this cannot be overstated."

There's also the controversy surrounding Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, who Prager argued should not be allowed to be sworn in to office using the Koran instead of the Bible, because it "undermines American civilization". He wrote that it would be "an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism—my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book. Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is."

My comment dealt with private institutions (Harvard, Standford, Yale, etc). Yes, the mainstream media does have a liberal bias.

Ivy I don't consider dap a liberal hack. At least he adds something for gods sake, he can consider another point of view. You on the other hand are a different story, it's ivys way or the highway and nothing else. Has it ever occurred to you for a second to consider another point of view other than your own? You know you and I don't disagree on everything. But every time dap or I offers something reasonable other than your fifties outlook you shoot it down as "liberal junk".

Like I said above, when he responds with, "Prager is full of shit," that basically tells me that's he's going by knee-jerk political bias alone. That isn't worth being considered.

Ivy I don't consider dap a liberal hack. At least he adds something for gods sake, he can consider another point of view. You on the other hand are a different story, it's ivys way or the highway and nothing else. Has it ever occurred to you for a second to consider another point of view other than your own? You know you and I don't disagree on everything. But every time dap or I offers something reasonable other than your fifties outlook you shoot it down as "liberal junk".

It is incredibly arrogant and presumptuous for Prager or anyone to suggest that the Muslim-American Ellison, whose American antecedents may well predate Prager's, is somehow being unAmerican and "undermining American civilization". What undermines American civilization is the backdoor religious test for office which Prager seems to think we ought to have. The Bible is not the central text for the American value system. In that respect Prager is the true false American of the two. There are plenty of theocracies to which Prager could move if he felt it necessary. Fortunately this country is not yet one of them.

WHAT?? Are you implying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution weren't handed down to the founding fathers on gold plates by Jesus himself?

WHAT?? Are you implying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution weren't handed down to the founding fathers on gold plates by Jesus himself?

I'm sure if you were to ask Ivy, he'd say they were. I've pretty much bowed out of this and similar debates with Ivy, not because he's right and I have no further argument, but because it is impossible to have a rational and reasonable debate with someone who is irrational and unreasonable. I honestly feel sorry for Ivy.

Ivy you gotta quit with this "I know all" bullshit. Seriously this is what I'm talking about, no one wants to hear it. I don't proclaim my opinions to be fact and neither should you. Is it any wonder why you come off as an arrogant dick? Because you do to A LOT of people on here. I'll be the first to admit this board swings very far left at times, but you're that small group on the extreme right that absolutely nobody likes or cares for. Your ideal world is everyone else's nightmare

Ivy you gotta quit with this "I know all" bullshit. Seriously this is what I'm talking about, no one wants to hear it. I don't proclaim my opinions to be fact and neither should you. Is it any wonder why you come off as an arrogant dick? Because you do to A LOT of people on here. I'll be the first to admit this board swings very far left at times, but you're that small group on the extreme right that absolutely nobody likes or cares for. Your ideal world is everyone else's nightmare

Please don't call anyone a dick.

Please don't call anyone a dick.

Ivy you gotta quit with this "I know all" bullshit. Seriously this is what I'm talking about, no one wants to hear it. I don't proclaim my opinions to be fact and neither should you. Is it any wonder why you come off as an arrogant dick? Because you do to A LOT of people on here. I'll be the first to admit this board swings very far left at times, but you're that small group on the extreme right that absolutely nobody likes or cares for. Your ideal world is everyone else's nightmare

While you're certainly right about this board swinging very far left (though it's most of the time), just out of curiosity, what puts me on the "extreme right?"

Well economically you and I have never discussed our opinions. However you are socially on the right. Against abortion, gay marriage, and to go along with the fact you are very religious, those are all things associated with the far right. In my opinion what puts you on the extreme right is saying that all women should stay at home with the children, not serve in combat, only men should be breadwinners, in addition to associating our constitution and government under the complete influence of god. The last subject I still think is mainly opinion and open to debate and interpretation.

My quarrel is not with your religion Ivy, and though I disagree with most of your beliefs that's not what truly bothers me. It's the way you go about, refusing to acknowledge even for one second you could be wrong. I admire the fact you stick to your guns, but sometimes in life you gotta give a little. Tow the line between standing up for what you believe in and arrogance.

I admit I could be wrong about almost everything I believe to be true and right. Doesn't mean I won't stop believing in it, but I can admit when and if I'm wrong if the latter proves to be true. Can you? No one wants to hear "You'll see the light someday" or "this is it and nothing else". People on both sides of the political spectrum do it (especially liberals). But from the left and centrist point of view, people such as yourself are only trying to stir hatred and bring back a world that we left behind for a reason. Can you imagine being a woman or non-white person in the fifties or sixties? Think about that.

He didn't say that completely Camarel. But he did imply that a majority of households should have women as the caretaker and the man as the breadwinner

Not even Dick Nose?

Dickie your avatar of Fat Tony looks like Cotton Hill from King of the Hill.

Why did you choose the handle Giancarlo was that's f'd up man

F'd up? No Dickie whats fucked up is lowlife assholes doing home invasions and shooting innocent people.

And WTF do you care what name i have? Well numbnuts has it ever dawned on you thats my name? No?

Dickie when you going to the joint? Or did you dime out your partners? Come on Dickie, who'd you rat out?

Well economically you and I have never discussed our opinions. However you are socially on the right. Against abortion, gay marriage, and to go along with the fact you are very religious, those are all things associated with the far right. In my opinion what puts you on the extreme right is saying that all women should stay at home with the children, not serve in combat, only men should be breadwinners, in addition to associating our constitution and government under the complete influence of god. The last subject I still think is mainly opinion and open to debate and interpretation.

My quarrel is not with your religion Ivy, and though I disagree with most of your beliefs that's not what truly bothers me. It's the way you go about, refusing to acknowledge even for one second you could be wrong. I admire the fact you stick to your guns, but sometimes in life you gotta give a little. Tow the line between standing up for what you believe in and arrogance.

I admit I could be wrong about almost everything I believe to be true and right. Doesn't mean I won't stop believing in it, but I can admit when and if I'm wrong if the latter proves to be true. Can you? No one wants to hear "You'll see the light someday" or "this is it and nothing else". People on both sides of the political spectrum do it (especially liberals). But from the left and centrist point of view, people such as yourself are only trying to stir hatred and bring back a world that we left behind for a reason. Can you imagine being a woman or non-white person in the fifties or sixties? Think about that.

If you don't like what he posts, why don't you just move on pass his posts?

Are you opsessed with him or something. Do you crave the attention from him?

Are you on here because you don't have any friends or a normal life?

Your right, I don't know what got in to me.
I am sorry.
I know he just can't help himself. Addition is tuff to break. I just thought I would point it out to him so he may see it from a different direction.

again sorry. peace to you all.

Well economically you and I have never discussed our opinions. However you are socially on the right. Against abortion, gay marriage, and to go along with the fact you are very religious, those are all things associated with the far right. In my opinion what puts you on the extreme right is saying that all women should stay at home with the children, not serve in combat, only men should be breadwinners, in addition to associating our constitution and government under the complete influence of god. The last subject I still think is mainly opinion and open to debate and interpretation.

My quarrel is not with your religion Ivy, and though I disagree with most of your beliefs that's not what truly bothers me. It's the way you go about, refusing to acknowledge even for one second you could be wrong. I admire the fact you stick to your guns, but sometimes in life you gotta give a little. Tow the line between standing up for what you believe in and arrogance.

I admit I could be wrong about almost everything I believe to be true and right. Doesn't mean I won't stop believing in it, but I can admit when and if I'm wrong if the latter proves to be true. Can you? No one wants to hear "You'll see the light someday" or "this is it and nothing else". People on both sides of the political spectrum do it (especially liberals). But from the left and centrist point of view, people such as yourself are only trying to stir hatred and bring back a world that we left behind for a reason. Can you imagine being a woman or non-white person in the fifties or sixties? Think about that.

Last Wednesday, in the southern French city of Montpelier, Vincent Autin and Bruno Boileau became the first gay couple to be legally married under the country's new "Marriage for All" law, which was passed by the French parliament earlier in the month. A plan to broadcast the ceremony on a giant screen in the city square was scrapped at the last minute for fear that it could provoke violence from anti-gay activists. Nonetheless, riot police clashed with some protestors.

The previous Sunday, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Paris to protest the law. It was the last in a series of massive rallies that began last December shortly after the marriage equality bill was introduced in the French National Assembly. Far right protestors fought with police, who responded with tear gas and truncheons. These protests have been some of the largest in the recent history of France, which is saying something given the French love for manifs, or demonstrations.

Accompanying the mass protests were a series of violent attacks on gay people.

Unfortunately the backlash isn't restricted to France, Ronnie. I'm not sure how closely you follow the New York media (I suspect that you do). But are you aware that gay bashing crimes are up something like 300 percent here, in uber-liberal New York City, since same sex marriage kicked in?

A couple of weeks ago a gay man was shot dead at point blank range, basically an execution, on the corner of West 8th Street and Sixth Avenue. His crime was holding hands with his boyfriend. This hits particularly close to home for me because I manage a property that's owned by myself and some family on West 8th, just off MacDougal, not even a full block away.

Now that's the heart of the storied West Village. The 10011 zip code boasts some of the highest property values in the country. Violent crimes in that neighborhood are almost unheard of today. It's home to God knows how many Hollywood types. But there's always been a good sized gay population in the Village, too, even prior to Stonewall (although it's now dwindling because even they're getting priced out).

And let's face it, God knows that not all gay men are meek and afraid. That's an ugly stereotype. But a lot of them still won't fight back for fear of public humiliation. So this will continue to be an uphill battle. It's Pollyannaism to think otherwise. The laws have finally caught up with the times, but that's not going to stop the hate all together, even here in uber-liberal New York City.

There used to be a very ugly saying among the cops in the Village back in the '60s, '70s and '80s. If you're offended by such things, stop reading. It went something like this: The only thing a fag won't blow is a whistle. The connotation being that even after they get beat down, they still won't file a report for fear of trouble at home, embarrassment at work, etc. And until that attitude changes, this shit will continue.

In a strange sort of way, Americans have become more liberal on drugs and gay rights because those issues have become more conservative in their presentation.

I wasn't aware of recent troubles in NYC but I should've known. Barbarians tend to react with violence.

The 10 Commandments!

The 10 Commandments!

The Three Amigos!

The descendants of Vichy and the Anti-Dreyfusards are now angry in France. Differnet uniforms, different causes, its the same garbage. And times like these when the garbage piles up and stinks, you have to take the trash out.



http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/french-hostility-same-sex-marriage-article-1.1362037

Jace, I bet when you saw LINCOLN you booed at him for the tricks he pulled to abolish slavery.

So I was right, since you can't argue on what I posted, and instead try comparing issue to slavery, and insinuate I am a bigot. Grow up. I posted truth, don't lie it? Tough luck. Voters in New York would have voted against it, as they did in California, where it was also snuck into law by politicians.

Jace, I bet when you saw LINCOLN you booed at him for the tricks he pulled to abolish slavery.

So I was right, since you can't argue on what I posted, and instead try comparing issue to slavery, and insinuate I am a bigot. Grow up. I posted truth, don't lie it? Tough luck. Voters in New York would have voted against it, as they did in California, where it was also snuck into law by politicians.

What do you know about voters in New York? Fact is despite political deals the people voted for it and that's the way it is. Tough luck.

So what? A majority of Americans still support it. Even in the pew poll

Totally untrue. Majority are agaisnt it, by wide margin, it's why even in California, one of nations most liberal states, it could not pass. In New York, it would not pass, as in California, it was forced on citizens through behind door deals and legislative vote. Let Americans vote in election on it, watch it get shot right down.

How can you factor in that so many people are afraid to say anything against these types of subjects.

Not wanting to be bashed by others. Whom seem to get all the attention because they are so vocal in the matter.

So what? A majority of Americans still support it. Even in the pew poll

The point, which you conveniently sidestepped, was biased reporting in the media.

And it's wishful thinking to believe a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Last time I checked, significantly more states have banned it than allow it. But you keep dreaming.

And two more just made it legal in the past year. Keep denying change ivy cuz it's coming and it's here to stay

Yeah you clearly know what you're talking about that's why they "could not pass it" in other states like Iowa and Minnesota. A wide majority are against it? Maybe in the south haha where people actually do hate it. But the trend is showing more and more Americans are for it. Media bias or not

I did know what I was talking about. That upsets you apparently. New York and California could not pass it through elections. Do you dispute that? States passing it are states where they know they have vote, but majority of states won't get it through fair elections.

As they should in the first place. Gay right's are not ours to give, it should be guaranteed by any government who doesn't trample on human rights.

If a sadomasochistic couple is heterosexual, they already HAVE the right to marry and have children. If you or I found that lifestyle loathsome, there's nothing we can do to stop them from living it. What they do is not illegal, as long as they're both of legal consensual age. The same goes for a heterosexual couple that is into swinging. It's not illegal.

Yet if a committed homosexual couple wants to marry, why is that illegal?

So, if their lifestyle is a secret, that's OK?

It's not a right to let people like that adopt kids, or a right to declare a sick lifestyle normal because of political pressure. If people into sado masochism organize and raise money, will couples in leather and carrying whips be considered good parents, and normal? How about people into threesomes?
Most people in America are against,it, what about citizens right to vote? Citizens in California said no, their vote was discarded. New York knew citizens would vote it down, they would not allow people to vote on issue. Voting rights and rights of majority have been trampled.

First of all, I don't care if all people are straight save for a gay couple, that couple have a right to live and be married and have kids, just as any other couple has such a right. Government should protect them from the intolerant mob.

Second of all, what you do in your bedroom, has no bearing on what sort of a parent you are. There are always social services who can evaluate all parents.

No offence, but that's a bit rich coming from an (Iranian,Scot,Anything), i'm not meaning to be cruel but commenting on American matters in the way you do (and if i did) is ridiculous imo . Sort out your own country then lecture US citizens imo.

I don't think I need to be from anywhere special to have an opinion and voice it, especially on a message board, on www, where you don't have to say where you live and where you are from. I hope that it be even richer that there are people in the part of the world with intolerant governments that are more tolerant than some who live in democracies and are intolerant. I hope this would make them rethink their prejudices.

However i don't agree with the way you talk to the Americans on this site, who disagree with you. By making out as if their intolerant because they have different views on gun control and gay rights, the majority of this site disagrees with them, but you're the only one imo that makes out as if their almost immoral for having these views. If i've misinterpreted your prior comments then i apologize, if not the last sentence of my last comment still stands.

Sure that you care less. You just happen to be anywhere that I post to criticize the way I debate with others. Does that mean I get to call you for what you are FS? I don't think that would make for a civil discussion anymore. Meanwhile, you always be on the look out for a big dog, to say me too, me too.

Look the way you post is completely condescending and patronizing. I may strongly disagree with most of what you say but if you went on about it a little less viciously I wouldn't have a big of a problem it. To add insult to injury you're not even American and I will say this: you are no impartial judge on the daily ongoings of US politics. The fact that you try to pass yourself off as such is laughable

Just where in the Gun debate did I mention that anyone with different opinion than mine is intolerant? Do you even know what my opinion on that issue is? And what else would you call the behavior of someone who cannot make peace with gay marriage except intolerant? I don't get to call an intolerance as such, since they are Americans and I'm not? What sort of logic is that?

You know, you act the way you see fit, and I do the same. Anybody who doesn't like reading my opinion, as always can ignore my posts. After all, you are not the moderator of this board, just as your cheerleader isn't, but always has to comment on all my behaviors here, while he says he doesn't care.

Ivy is right though, any media bias should be called out whether you agree with them or not. Would Ivy call them out if it was the other way round? That's a different question, but regardless the media should be neutral on every issue imo, just reporting the news in it's entirety without pushing an agenda.

As they should in the first place. Gay right's are not ours to give, it should be guaranteed by any government who doesn't trample on human rights.

Sure that you care less. You just happen to be anywhere that I post to criticize the way I debate with others. Does that mean I get to call you for what you are FS? I don't think that would make for a civil discussion anymore. Meanwhile, you always be on the look out for a big dog, to say me too, me too.

I'm not gonna respond to most of your comment because i'd just be repeating myself. I do know what your opinions on both issues are because i've read most of the two threads.There are plenty of people who are just flat out intolerant of gays, but there are also people who disagree with the matter on faith and other grounds. The reason i keep mentioning Americans is because you come on this site and judge them for their views as well as telling them how they should lead their everyday lives, but somehow i doubt your on the streets in Iran lecturing people with alot worse views and behaviour.

I'll say one more thing before i go back to not commenting on these political threads, because they suck you into pointless debates. It should tell you something about the manner in which you post when people who basically agree with you on these matters like me and 123joeschmo are mentioning it.

That's just it. You talk as if these so called "rights" are somehow inherent to them. Says who? God sure didn't give gays the right to marry. And even if you discount all that, we sure as hell know that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to allow gay marriage. Just like the Fourth Amendment was never intended to allow abortion. But this is what happens when corrupt liberal and overreaching judges twist the Constitution in order to make their own laws.

They are born this way, and that makes it their inherent rights to marry the way they please, just as you are born straight and it is your inherent right to marry the way you please. Just because people don't share your religious views, they aren't corrupt.

First, just because somebody is born a certain way doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to certain things. I don't know where you get that idea. Second, if we go by exactly what you said above, people who are born with attraction to kids should be allowed that act on that "right" as well.

First, it does.

Second, the extend of their entitlements goes as far as not harming others. So how does gay marriage harm you?

According to who? See, this is my whole point. You and others attribute certain "rights," as well as reasons for those "rights," that you make up out of thin air. Where do rights come from if not either from God or government? Certainly not ourselves or people could just make up whatever rights for themselves they wanted. There is nothing in religion that gives gays the "right" to marry. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that gives them the "right" to marry.

Well, for one thing, it reinforces the liberal, secular lie that there is no inherent difference between the sexes. And so there is no inherent difference between the marriage of a man and a woman and that of two men or two women. And, therefore, they are all equal. It's the government recognizing and giving ascent to a perverted and unnatural lifestyle and giving it equal status as that of the natural family, which is the only true, and most fundamental, building block of society.

afs, you raise a good point about rights not being subjected to popular vote. One of the primary motivations of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. They knew that there would be times where highly unpopular religious beliefs, speech and opinions, vilified criminals, and controversial associations (among other things) would be silenced by legislation or popular vote. Those were the rights, deemed most important to protect.

While the US Supreme Court will not likely take the step in the pending cases to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the issue of gay marriage, the day will inevitably come when that decision will be made. While the Court has issued recent decisions supporting gay rights, like ruling that Texas' anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, it has not yet clearly determined a standard for review applicable to gay rights even though past decisions declared laws unconstitutional without even considering heightened scrutiny.

Admittedly, the Founding Fathers did not advocate same-sex marriage-it wasn't an issue in 1776. Being a product of their times, when they wrote "All men are created equal," they meant all land-owning white males. But the Founding Fathers did believe in the equality of all citizens. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” Now that being a land-owning white male isn't necessary in order to enjoy all of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers' precepts apply to LGBT citizens as well.

Admittedly, the Founding Fathers did not advocate same-sex marriage-it wasn't an issue in 1776. Being a product of their times, when they wrote "All men are created equal," they meant all land-owning white males. But the Founding Fathers did believe in the equality of all citizens. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” Now that being a land-owning white male isn't necessary in order to enjoy all of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers' precepts apply to LGBT citizens as well.

It applies to LGBT citizens individually. Not that their relationships are in any way equal to that of same sex couples, or that they have a right to be recognized by society as married. Don't mistake the two.

Why is it people can't bring up The Founding Fathers without mentioning slavery? If they had not owned slaves, would that then make gay rights unconstitutional? There is no tie in.

It's what liberals do. They twist and misconstrue the intention of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution, to their own purposes. It's how killing unborn babies became legal on the ridiculous basis of a "right to privacy." And how gay marriage may well be legalized, or DOMA at least struck down, based on the "equal protection" clause. Going this direction, which liberals mistake as "progress," our country will and Constitution will look nothing like it was originally intended.

[The Founding Fathers never intended gay marriage to be legalized. You know that as much as I do. There is no Constitutional basis for gays to have the "right" to marry.

It's how killing unborn babies became legal on the ridiculous basis of a "right to privacy."

What is this? I haven't heard of this, i apologize could you post a link please?

It's what liberals do. They twist and misconstrue the intention of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution, to their own purposes. It's how killing unborn babies became legal on the ridiculous basis of a "right to privacy." And how gay marriage may well be legalized, or DOMA at least struck down, based on the "equal protection" clause. Going this direction, which liberals mistake as "progress," our country will and Constitution will look nothing like it was originally intended.

Well, first of all the Founding Fathers -all of them- were dead before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, so your reliance on them for the question of the constitutionality of gay marriage is clearly misplaced.

Eventually, laws forbidding homosexuals the right to marry (a fundamental freedom) will be challenged on the basis of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and probably the Ninth Amendment. It wasn't until 1967 when the Court recognized a constitutional right for biracial marriages. Opponents of the court's ruling used similar insipid arguments that there is nothing in the constitution allowing such an unnatural union and that it would bring about the ruination of civilization.

The right to privacy was first protected as a constitutional right in a case called Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme court found that a state law that made contraception was a crime. It was classified as a penumbral right as it originated from the I, III, IV, V amendments, which embody privacy values. The right was also viewed as being part of the IX Amendment, which recognizes that the rights, enumerated in the bill of Rights, are not an exhaustive list of protected rights.

Also, the Due Process Clause of the XIV Amendment prevents legislative efforts to deny the people of life, liberty and property. The concept of liberty within this context has been interpreted as encompassing individual privacy rights. This was the basis for Roe v. Wade, and while I may disagree with the outcome of the decision, I feel the application of the privacy right was appropriate for the test of the constitutionality of abortion.

The privacy right, found in the Fourteenth Amendment, was the basis for declaring statutes criminalizing sodomy as unconstitutional ten years ago.

Excuse me were you there in 1787? You don't know how the founding fathers thought or what their intents and purposes were

It applies to LGBT citizens individually. Not that their relationships are in any way equal to that of same sex couples, or that they have a right to be recognized by society as married. Don't mistake the two.

Why is it people can't bring up The Founding Fathers without mentioning slavery? If they had not owned slaves, would that then make gay rights unconstitutional? There is no tie in.

Its obvious in your "utopian" world we would be living in the 1950s (probably even in the 1800s) given your extremely socially conservative viewpoints on gay marriage, voting rights, religion,capital punishment, quite frankly some of the comments you have made over the yrs on these forums on race as well. Frankly, I dont recall you being a progressive on a single issue that comes to mind.

First, generally speaking, the 1950's would be much more preferable than today's world. We, as a society, have generally declined between then and now.

Second, what comments about race are you referring to?

Third, let's dispense with the latest word games, huh? "Progressive" is just a new, shiny word for "liberal." And, while I'm generally quite conservative, there are some issues I may differ with others on. Treatment of animals is one. Also, I take a less harsh approach on the immigration issue.

As for gay marriage, I did read your words. The precepts of the Founding Fathers does not apply to gays in the context of marriage. That's you (a lib) stretching and twisting things to suit your opinion.

The black mother and her kid on the bus? Well, she actually looked either mulatto or Hispanic. In any event, if that wasn't a welfare momma, I don't what is. But you, as a typical lib, were probably more alarmed at my joke than her tossing her baby aside in order to fight that other woman, huh? Much like my affirmative action comment about that piece of shit who attacked that woman in that home invasion.

I'm aware of that but the Founding Fathers were brought up in relation to same-sex marriage agove.



Since when is marriage a "fundamental freedom?" As I've pointed out many times before, the country had no problem making polygamous marriages illegal (despite the 1st Amendment grounds). And you and other current gay-marriage proponents never had a problem with that. But now gays suddenly have a "right" to be married and have that marriage recognized by society? What a steaming pile of phony, hypocritical, cherry-picking, bullshit.



You can recite all the legalize mumbo jumbo and case precedent you want. Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. Even many liberal, pro-abortionists admit as much. It should have been left up to the states. To pass that law, via stretching the meaning of "right to privacy," was ridiculous.



Give me a break. Are we being willfully ignorant now? You know damn well all of them would have looked at such a thing with disgust and never would have even considered such a thing seriously.

Typical righty, lumping somebody's views on an issue with others without them even stating it. I stated your comment to prove my point, which I did. Obcourse I was very alarmed with the way she threw her child, and I am also alarmed about the home invasion. It's not the specific acts, its your comments we are talking about here.

It is refrshing and encouraging to know that some Board members do, indeed, read the Federalist Papers and other tomes about the Constitution's formulation. As an addition to your bibliography I suggest Akhil Amar's The Bill of Rights. It is a challenging, but rewarding read; I managed to wade through it.

I've read enough of your posts to have a pretty good idea of your views. Honestly, I'd bet you really were more offended by my comments than the actions of those people who elicited them.

Don't tell me what I do or don't know. I don't know the founding fathers or what they thought of gay marriage, there's really no documentation in regards to that. However, I do believe they thought that the constitution could be changed in the future in keeping with the times. An example of this are abolishing slavery. But who the fuck are you to get on your high horse and say what's immoral and what isn't?

You couldn't be more wrong on that even if you tried. I think most people on here would have great ideas on your views (Religious conservative with a capital R) on many issues, since you always gracefully chime in with them whenever you get a chance.

You've been around long enough to know I can't stand the Republicans almost as much as I can't stand the Democrats. I've said many times I'm an independent conservative. You, on the other hand, are a dyed in the wool partisan Democrat.

You should know I am not strictly a partisan Democrat. You on the other hand are a die hard conservative through the end, no matter how much you want to paint yourself as an independent. Your views prove otherwise.

Oh, that's right, guys like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or John Adams would have been just peachy keen with things like abortion and gay marriage.

And enough with this "keep up with the times" bullshit. If something is wrong, it's wrong, regardless of what year it is. And I'm not talking just morally, which I know you don't care about, but also legally. Once again, if states want to enact laws to allow gay marriage, so be it. But to argue there's any Constitutional basis for it is a lie. Just like the argument supporting abortion.

In pretty much every political discussion on these forums, your default setting is liberal/Democrat.

As for myself, I certainly am a die hard conservative. But that's not the same as being a partisan Republican. I'm independent because I adhere to neither political party.

Your default 100% of the time is religious conservative in every one of your posts.

Ive already stated on here before a few times I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime and I work for arguably the most popular Republican in the nation. That shoots your idea of my default views in the water. You on the other hand have done nothing to prove otherwise.

It's called voting on the issues, regardless of party. I vote strictly on the issues, period. You should try it sometime.

I'm sure you would love to live in the 1950s ivy. You're a white religious guy living in Utah. But not blacks, women, gays, or Hispanics and many others. Today's world isn't perfect but id take it over 1953 any day

As long as the government doesn't try to stick it down my Church's throat, I have no problem with gay marriages in City Hall or wherever.

Don't, for a second, think that couldn't happen. They had to twist the meaning of the Constitution just to get this far. Don't think that the same corrupt lawyers and judges won't do the same to go even further, given enough time.

I'll jump off that bridge when I come to it. Either that or just move to Italy. You think dual citizenship was cheap under Berlcusconi?

Since when is marriage a "fundamental freedom?"

Since 1888. More than a dozen times since 1888 the Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right. It's nothing less than that. It is among the most intimate and personal choices a person makes and is central to the liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It's substantive due process, a vital Constitutright. I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with it.

Uh...then why did this country outlaw polygamy? Isn't that form a marriage a fundamental right, especially considering it has a first amendment basis with freedom of religion?

Bottom line, when it comes to the kind of marriage you like, you're quick to invoke the Constitution (though it doesn't apply and should be left up to the states). When it's not the kind you like, you don't make a peep. If this had been a polygamist marriage case going to the Supreme Court, instead of a gay marriage case, you and a lot of others here would have been arguing against polygamist marriage and saying there was no Constitutional basis for it. Your hypocrisy is so transparent it's not even funny.

Uh...then why did this country outlaw polygamy? Isn't that form a marriage a fundamental right, especially considering it has a first amendment basis with freedom of religion?

Bottom line, when it comes to the kind of marriage you like, you're quick to invoke the Constitution (though it doesn't apply and should be left up to the states). When it's not the kind you like, you don't make a peep. If this had been a polygamist marriage case going to the Supreme Court, instead of a gay marriage case, you and a lot of others here would have been arguing against polygamist marriage and saying there was no Constitutional basis for it. Your hypocrisy is so transparent it's not even funny.

I'll answer this. Ivy I don't a shit what two consenting two adults do behind closed doors. That includes polygamy. Fuck it, I don't care. I can't speak for all the other "libs" but I can speak for me. You know what's hypocrisy? You hardcore conservatives preaching for less government, yet you want to decide what Americans can and can't do in their bedrooms or in a marriage ceremony. That my friend is hypocrisy at its greatest. Nosing in on that is BS stacked a mile high. That includes the government intruding in on the Catholic Church. Leave it alone

@ IvyLeague, there is no significant support for polygamy in this nation or any other in the world outside of Africa and the Middle East, and thus that point of your argument is moot. Mostly because it's not possible to share marital rights and responsibilities equally between more than 2 people. Every first world nation on Earth says marriage is between TWO consenting adults. Period.

The great emancipator Abraham Lincoln almost sent the country to war with Mormons over that very issue, and if not for the war against the Confederacy indeed he would have. But let's not pretend states such as Utah, Arizona and others in fact don't "turn a blind eye" to FLDS polygamy where children (girls as young as 12) are married off against their will to much older men.

If I actually voted, it would be on the issues. Like I keep saying, I adhere to neither party. But I'm willing to bet you're a registered Democrat.

Since I actually vote, unlike you (which I don't believe). I would be stupid not to be a registered Democrat in NYS, particularly if I want to vote in the primaries. NYS operates under a closed primary system, meaning only voters affiliated with a particular party may vote in its primary. The Democratic primary is the most contentious one with the most candidates and thus I want my vote to count. Now the general election thats a different story, I give every candidate a chance. Whoever I feel has the best ideas on the issues I care about, gets my vote. Doesnt matter if their from the Tea party, Communist party, the rent is too damm high party, Democratic, or Republican.

Ivy, some of us know precisely what we speak of and haven't been brainwashed by a fringe cult that almost everyone in this country regards as clincally insane.

Abraham Lincoln supported the condemnation of Mormon plural marriage as a “relic of barbarism" and opposed statehood for Utah unless the Church renounced polygamy. In his 1857 speech on the Dred Scott case he said it was “probable” the Mormons were in “open rebellion” against the federal government. He then stated that therefore he was open to the idea of abolishing Utah as a territory and said the Saints should be “somehow coerced to obedience”. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858, New York: Rutgers University Press, 1989, p. 390).

This is all after the Utah war took place in which several later Civil War generals (i.e Albert Sidney Johnston) and statesmen participated in. So please, save the ad hominems for the rest of the Kool Aid drinkers.

And 'so what if there is no significant support for polygamy?' This is the still the government by the people, of the people, and for the people, right?

Every poll in this nation says there's more support in favor of same sex marriage than those opposing it, and it grows everyday. Polygamy isn't even a blip on the radar screen.

And it really doesn't matter what people thought of this 1,000 years ago or even 100 years ago, we've advanced on every other social issue so why not this one?

So now you speak for everyone, huh? You're speaking for yourself. Nothing more.

And this equates to him going to war with the Mormons?

Tell that to the people of California. And once again, you can't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage (which they say is based on the Constitution) and then turn around and say polygamy should remain illegal based on some public opinion argument. Hell, at least other libs here are being somewhat consistent by saying they would allow polygamy. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You and other gay marriage supporters like to quote these polls, which are often conflicting. Last I checked, far more states have ban gay marriage than allow it. Which is precisely why gay marriage supporters have to go through the courts. They know they will lose in the court of public opinion most of the time.

Hardly. Divorce is around 50%. Ever increasing numbers of children are born out of wedlock. As well as raised without a mother in the home. The feminist movement has about sex without consequences - the worst thing to happen to women. How many diseases have been spread about by people fornicating like animals? 50+ million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Attempts to get tax-payer funded sex changes. The minimization of the differing identities and roles of men and women. Women in combat, as well as SEALS and Rangers for God's sake. Reverse racism in the form of affirmative action. And now federally recognized gay marriage.

What planet are you living on?

Uhh, most people do regard Mormonism as a cult founded by a complete and utter heretic fraud. You can argue it's not until whenever, but those guys are on about the same level as the Branch Davidians. Like when the BYU basketball player was suspended for having sex--with his FIANCEE--safe to say that doesn't fall into mainstream America or virtually anywhere else.
http://www.cultwatch.com/mormon.html
http://mormoncult.org/
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/cults/mormons.HTM

We already had a war with the Mormons, and there would have been more had they not acquiescenced to the demands of the US government. Now you're just arguing dishonestly and denying basic historical facts and syllogism, but I'll continue to play along.

You think I'm a liberal? Wow, maybe to a Nazi or some small town, narrow minded ignorant ass but not in general. And again, when there's a popular outcry for polygamy like there has been for same sex marriage it'll be addressed. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Spoiler alert: It's not even on the radar.

You can't cite one mainstream media poll where the opposition is higher, because Fox News has it even. And those states are falling one by one, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, with you and others dragging your feet every step of the way.

Well I'm NOT living on planet Kolob with you and your cronies, but I'll tell you now that none of those social conditions you mentioned will be mitigated by the disallowal of same sex marriage (cetainly not women in the military or whatever else you throw in there). People will still get married in traditional settings and have kids; some will be good parents, some not, but even that is highly subjective as to what constitutes good parenting. This all sounds like a cope-out to cover your own personal biases.

Ivy you kind of dodged the last part of Franks question. How does gay marriage affect any of the social declines you mentioned?

Joe how old are you?

^Ive heard that one before from plenty of rightwing nutjobs. Just makes me yawn honestly. Just like frank said, dragging your feet. A fair amount of people, including an overwhelming majority in my generation, support or do not care about gay marriage. Thirty years from now it won't even be an issue

I think you and the rest of your generation are in for a rude awakening. What one generation tolerates, the next embraces.

I'm 22, and think it is disgusting and sick. A lot of my friends in my age group feel same way, but if we speak out, we are wrongfully condemned as haters or some other dumb term. Many people in my age group are looking for approval or just tend to go along with whatever trend seems to be popular.

I'm 22, and think it is disgusting and sick. A lot of my friends in my age group feel same way, but if we speak out, we are wrongfully condemned as haters or some other dumb term. Many people in my age group are looking for approval or just tend to go along with whatever trend seems to be popular.

I'm 22, and think it is disgusting and sick. A lot of my friends in my age group feel same way, but if we speak out, we are wrongfully condemned as haters or some other dumb term. Many people in my age group are looking for approval or just tend to go along with whatever trend seems to be popular.

I'm 22, and think it is disgusting and sick. A lot of my friends in my age group feel same way, but if we speak out, we are wrongfully condemned as haters or some other dumb term. Many people in my age group are looking for approval or just tend to go along with whatever trend seems to be popular.

I just think we should live and let live. If you found out tomorrow you only had a year left of Earth, would you waste one second of it trying to deny something as trivial as same sex marriage? With so many pressing issues in the world and so many people suffering there has to be a better way to spend one's time. IMO such broad social engineering on such a trivial issue is done by those without perspective and context on what really matters in life. People who are gay and can't change that fact already feel bad enough and out of place as it is, why waste your time making them feel even worse? Sounds simple, but love your brothers and sisters and try to make the world a happier place.

+1

To me it's a complete non issue i'm alot more concerned with the economy and foreign policy. It actually feels like a distraction more than anything else, but so many people on both sides get up in arms over it, in ways my cynical side almost thinks certain politicians enjoy this issue taking center stage when it distracts so many people from the real issues.

Uh...then why did this country outlaw polygamy? Isn't that form a marriage a fundamental right, especially considering it has a first amendment basis with freedom of religion?

I just think we should live and let live. If you found out tomorrow you only had a year left of Earth, would you waste one second of it trying to deny something as trivial as same sex marriage? With so many pressing issues in the world and so many people suffering there has to be a better way to spend one's time. IMO such broad social engineering on such a trivial issue is done by those without perspective and context on what really matters in life. People who are gay and can't change that fact already feel bad enough and out of place as it is, why waste your time making them feel even worse? Sounds simple, but love your brothers and sisters and try to make the world a happier place.

Where are you from jace? And I don't see why you should give a shit about gays, what they do or if they get married. Sure it's your opinion and people have to respect that, but don't think you and your friends are in any sort of majority among our generation.

I think my generation and I are doing the right thing by accepting or at least tolerating gays as opposed to telling them they're sinful and going to end up being tortured in hell. You tell me which sounds better. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree

First of all, while the possible right to gay marriage has yet to be addressed, there are clear legal, policy, and constitutional differences between that and polygamy or bigamy. Heterosexuals can still exercise the right to marry while gays can't in most states. If we were to challenge a marital law that does not include polygamy under strict scrutiny (an overly generous standard under the circumstances), there are compelling state interests that are overriding. There are numerous rights, obligations, privileges and responsibilities associated with the state institution of marriage that are compromised anddestroyedby pluralistic or even incestual unions. These include matters involving death, secession, diminution of assets, social security, tax filings, exemptions, deductions, custody, transfers of property, insurance coverages, right to enter into prenuptial agreements, and many more. Fidelity is a state interest as well, which is nullified by the very existence of polygamy or bigamy.

Polygamists are not denied the right to marry, but by demanding a right to maintain multiple spouses they are altering the rights associated in marriage.

The rights, responsibilities and obligations associated with marriage can be fulfilled by same-sex partners as well as opposite sex partners. Moreover, gay marriage has a much more valid argument under equal protection as they constitute a distinct and immutable class of people, which would require heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

Finally, spare us all the hysterics and juvenile name calling, but feel free to keep hurling bible verses at us.

Oh, and refresh my memory, how does a believing Catholic support gay marriage again? Is that stance from the Joe Biden wing of the church?

A federal judge on Friday blocked Michigan's ban on domestic partner benefits for employees who work for public schools or local governments, saying state lawmakers simply wanted to punish gays and lesbians.

@pizzaboy - I actually consider myself one of IvyLeague's friends, too. I just think he's gone waaay overboard lately with the proselytizing. This issue hits home for him which surprises me he's not more tolerant of it. I have too many wonderful friends who are in same sex relationships and I just refuse to deny them or anyone else their civil rights. Are there some hitches in this thing? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it's worth discriminating for the sake of personal preference alone.

Easy, buddy. I'm one of the only friends you've got here .

But all kidding aside, I've explained myself to you earlier on this matter, on the board an in pms as well. I don't "support" it as much as I just don't give a shit, and here's why (again):

If you go by the letter of the law of the Catholic Church (of which I'm a member), City Hall "marriages" aren't real marriages anyway. Now if my neighbor Joe married his wife Nancy at City Hall twenty years ago, and we've been friends for the last ten, and their "marriage" (or lack thereof) doesn't offend me, then why should a City sponsored marriage between a gay couple bother me? Neither is recongnized by the Church, so it's no skin off my apple. I'm just trying to be consistent.

And if they're entitiled to Government benefits, then they should get them. You're still a pretty young guy and I hope you've enjoyed good health. But you have no idea what a simple battle with a more than serious disease can do to a bank account. If a gay couple being married makes one of them eligible for the other's health insurance, that ain't a bad thing in my opinion.

As far as the morality of it all: I'm not going to preach eternal damnation on a message board any more than I'm going to get in my car, drive to the South Bronx, and preach peace and love to teenaged gangbangers. In short, it ain't none of my fucking business. It's between them and God. And I've used this one before but I'll use it again anyway: To paraphrase David Puddy, "They're the ones going to hell, not me."

@IvyLeague - Klydon's not spouting legal mumbo jumbo on polygamy, he's expanding on exactly what I said in post #722805--it's not possible to share marital rights and responsibilities equally between more than 2 people. No amount of covering your ears and burying your head in the sand changes this. The only ones arguing the polygamy point are people from Utah or those searching for a diversion via a straw man argument.

We can't and won't base our laws on what "God" supposedly said, that's insane. God has said, or has been interpretated to have said, a lot of things which simply don't hold up in the modern world. Being a creationist and a follower of institutionalized religion are NOT dependant concepts. I'm a creationist because my natural intuition and study of science leads me to it. No religion has the institutional right to tell anyone they've actually spoken to and speak for this creator, though. Atleast not in this country they don't.

Here is why they should not be allowed to marry or adopt. This is a very sick story.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-treatment.html